Criminal Nature of 2020’s Voter Fraud Changes Everything
Only the Presidential election faces deadlines (those deadlines are process driven), other state elections can be resolved well after the election.
Lost in all the rhetoric over voter fraud is the fact, if voter fraud did take place at the levels asserted by the Trump post-election legal team, these are criminal acts.
More important, this changes everything about the 2020 election and all future elections.
We are no longer talking about clerical errors.
This is not human error.
Voter fraud of the level being claimed by President Trump’s post-election legal team rises to the level of criminal activity.
The main issue: Can a candidate win due to the commission of a crime?
Can Joe Biden be inaugurated as the next President if he won due to criminal malfeasance—even if he had no hand in the crime?
It is a long-held tenet of U.S. law, no one can benefit from the commission of a crime.
Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme
Investors who got out of Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme before it collapsed thought they were living under a lucky star.
The Madoff Ponzi scheme was a criminal endeavor—and no one can benefit from a criminal enterprise.
Therefore, those who thought they had won the lottery by getting out of the Madoff scheme before it collapsed were met with a rude awakening when they were ordered by the federal government to return everything they were paid out.
Only after all the assets and debits were calculated did any of Bernie Madoff’s victims see any money—and even then it was mere pennies on the dollar of their investment—many lost virtually everything.
The basic fact, no one can benefit from a criminal act—even if they had no hand in the crime.
In the American legal system—crime is not supposed to pay.
Does that philosophy apply to elected office?
The 2020 election may go down as unprecedented—not due to the level of participation by American voters—but because of the sheer level of criminal activity and its impact on future elections.
It is worth pointing out, the American election process is not geared to address criminal actions.
The election protocols are meant to prevent clerical and human errors not criminal activity.
The issue: What would proof of criminal activity mean to the 2020 election?
If it were proven there was indeed criminal activity, nothing would be off the table.
First, any and every deadline associated with the election process would immediately become meaningless.
The date to certify the election no longer is a hard deadline.
The date to certify electorates—gone.
Even the date of inauguration loses its significance.
Effectively, everything we know about the election process and the transfer of power—goes by the wayside.
This is what is at stake with the 2020 election.
Nothing we know about elections holds any meaning.
Worse, this becomes a legal issue.
In Pennsylvania, the obvious voter fraud associated with mail-in ballots in Philadelphia will likely have to be settled in that State’s Supreme Court and if there is not an acceptable ruling, it may require the Supreme Court to become involved.
In 2000, there was the “hanging chad” fiasco of Florida. The county clerk in Broward county (a Democrat) had designed what is now known as the infamous “Butterfly” ballot.
The Butterfly ballot, a punch card styled ballot, so confused the citizens of Broward county it led to a national spectacle.
The country became mesmerized watching election officials trying to decipher whether a voter had intended to punch a particular card in one manner or another.
It would have been considered comical—if it hadn’t been for the gravity of the situation.
Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened and forced a halt to the endless counting—and George W. Bush was declared the 43rd President of America.
Still, 2000 was an issue of clerical or human error not criminal malfeasance.
Criminal malfeasance is what separates 2020 from all previous elections.
Therefore, everything that has come before can no longer guide the country’s actions going forward—we are effectively operating in uncharted waters.
The likely outcome, the U.S. Supreme Court will urge expedience by the Trump legal team to complete its litigation—but will not demand it.
The U.S. Supreme Court would prefer they didn’t have to create a new precedent. They would prefer all the deadlines remain in place—but they likely will not choose arbitrary process driven deadlines over the law.
From the Trump post-election legal team’s standpoint, they will not pursue all instances of voter fraud—just those that will lead to a Trump victory.
So, look for litigation in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia—potentially Arizona and Minnesota—but not everywhere voter fraud took place in 2020.
Just Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan would flip the election to Donald Trump.
Michigan might also lead to Republican Senatorial candidate John James also carrying the state.
It should be stated: Only the Presidential election faces deadlines (those deadlines are process driven), other state elections can be resolved well after the election.
However, the question becomes: Will additional voter fraud investigations be pursued after the Presidency has been settled?
How would that impact down ticket races?
There are still Federal Senate and House races that could be affected by voter fraud, not to mention State races.
This is what separates 2020 from any previous election in American history.